We have all heard the allegations against Herman Cain regarding sexual harassment, in fact it is probably all most have heard coming from the
political forum. All thanks to the respectable unbiased journalism of Politico.

Take a look at these statistics and tell me honestly, this is not a smear campaign.

Now I can certainly see how Politico has it's priorities straight. Who cares that the unemployment rate is sky high Who cares that we ran guns to
Mexico's cartel and our Attorney General claims no knowledge of this.
Who cares that the Obama Administration dumped $535 million into a company now known as solar failure.
However, I am losing sleep over the allegations of 3 or 4 or 10 women anonymously stating they are victims of sexual harassment!!

Can you not see how lopsided the politico's so called journalism is? This is simply a smear campaign, because the Repubs. finally have a viable
candidate! I still do not believe any of these allegations but I absolutely believe
the length the media would go to to destroy someone's character.

Funny thing, I think the entire tabloid type stories are gonna blow up in Politico's face. I would not be surprised to see Mr. Cain turn around and
file suit for defamation of character.

This is an example headline after the allegations broke. It mentions the allegations but remains neutral. What would you prefer? The point is, based
on the specific numbers reported in the OP, it would be hard to find an article after the fact that didn't mention Cain's fondness for inappropriate
encounters. Even if they article was to support Cain it would most likely mention the allegations. Your numbers are incriminating at first glance, but
I bet if you researched those 138 articles you'd have a better understanding of what is happening here.

If Obama was alleged to have sexually assaulted someone who signed a non-disclosure in 1985, but the news broke yesterday, how long do you think it
would take before even unrelated articles about Obama stopped mentioning it? It's just the way it is.. You want to be president? Don't put your
hands on the pretty ladies unless the pretty ladies want you to.

Could Cain sue for "defamation of character" if the allegations are proven true?

One of the women is requesting that the restaurant authority remove the gag order.

Another woman has come out publicly.

I believe there are five women making these claims now... You want this sexual predator as your president? A man who can't respect a woman's rights
is the kind of man who will justify nibs of corruption in other areas as well.

I've heard of women who like abuse but never understood it. Are there enough people like this out there to elect Cain? I surely hope not.

1) The issue is resulting in a LOT of coverage for Cain, and has solidified his core of support and prompted many campaign donations.

2) Cain will be vindicated and cleared of these allegations on some level, or it will otherwise be seen as a non-issue or rallying cry and Cain will
enjoy the support needed to win the republican nomination.

3) Cain is not presidential material as he has no fundamental understanding of a good many of the main issues we're currently dealing with and
frequently appeals to more-knowledgeable faceless advisors (who tend to be legacy Washington insiders who crafted the current debacles in the first
place), offers no real solutions, continues to push for aggressive US policies and offer no discernible threat to big government or business, and
relies on catchy phrases and a folksy demeanor to appeal to certain voters and garner support.

4) If elected, no significant change for the better results as the Fed continues as-is, US military aggression continues as-is, failed domestic
policies and intrusion in states' and peoples' rights continue as-is.

That's just what I'm feeling so far. Perhaps I missed something somewhere...?

That said, my opinion is that the Cain campaign itself fished these women out of Cain's past in an attempt to scuttle Cain's chances at being
nominated. Why? Because if Cain wins the nomination, then new rules apply to campaign finance - new, more restrictive rules. Just like in 2008,
probably a majority of the Republican candidates aren't really out to "win," so much as they're out to let the country know "Hey, I'm still
here, come buy my book and give me campaign money!"

Neither Cain nor Gingrich really want to be president.

Unfortunately I think Herman Cain will be caught by the same confluence of stupid that left mcCain the Republican choice in 2008 - "He's not Mitt
Romney" paired with a bad decision to stay in the race as long as possible to wring out money to the last drop.

if Cain gets the nomination, it's going to be a rollover slaughter; 68% to 42% in obama's favor (Assuming Paul doesn't break and run independent,
which would result in something more like a 64% / 30% / 16% vote in favor of Obama, then Cain, then Paul)

Originally posted by Praetorius
2) Cain will be vindicated and cleared of these allegations on some level, or it will otherwise be seen as a non-issue or rallying cry and Cain will
enjoy the support needed to win the republican nomination.

They settled with hte accusers. There's really no way around this, you can't say "didn't happen."

With regard to it being a non-issue? Probably so. We're talking about a Republican nominee, after all.

Infidelity only matters when their is an R by their names past few weeks have been nothing about but destroying the lead Canididate and shape the 2012
election to give the current Potus a better shot.

Cain get's the GOP nomination and it becomes between him and Obama the race card can't be played like it has everday for the past 3 years.

It is nothing but stacking the deck for a Romney/Obama shootout in the world of politics the it's only purpose to to destroy with exception when it
comes to the R by their name and if their is a D meh so what.

Originally posted by neo96
Infidelity only matters when their is an R by their names past few weeks have been nothing about but destroying the lead Canididate and shape the 2012
election to give the current Potus a better shot.

Cain get's the GOP nomination and it becomes between him and Obama the race card can't be played like it has everday for the past 3 years.

It is nothing but stacking the deck for a Romney/Obama shootout in the world of politics the it's only purpose to to destroy with exception when it
comes to the R by their name and if their is a D meh so what.

Remember Clinton?

edit on 7-11-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

If these allegations came up against Obama it would be the same thing.

You complain about the "race card" - stop pulling the "party card."

What's the difference between Cain and Clinton? Well, when allegations came against Clinton he was already president.. He was impeached. He had
enough clout to hold on to the presidency.

Cain, on the other hand, has to worry much more about public perception because he has not been elected yet.

One person on here gets it! Thanks Neo96 Not emotional at all when it comes to supporting Herman Cain. Now I am going to ask
a rhetorical question. Are there really that many naive liberals here? Of course there are, but that's just
their MO. As far as sue if the allegations are true? No, you sue if they are false,

As for the woman speaking publicly, good acting at best! She never even worked with the man and is someone from lo and behold
Chicago! Which makes me even more suspicious.

Politico was so anxious to break this story, they released a non-story. No names, no specifics, can;t even tellmore us what heI did.
They haveswitched done nothing butto grasp at straws.

Yes, you are right. I happen to think illegal gun running to the Mexican cartels is a little more important.;t the same for the atrocious state of
the economy. I care more about being able to pay my bills than some woman's false accusations.

It is crystal clear Cain scares the hell out of the LOTUS! Their camp is scrambling to stay above water.

Yes, I remember Clinton. I remember the republicans basically shutting down the government in an effort to "get him." All while Gingrich is banging
two women other than his wife. Under the excuse that the Clinton impeachment had him feeling so patriotic that he just couldn't help himself. Yeah,
that was actually his excuse.

So, my question is. Did you like having a president with a sexual harassment record? Apparently not. So, why would you want another?

So much for Ann Coulter's claims that "our blacks are so much better than their blacks," huh?

These are ridiculous statements. You are comparing apples to oranges. Obama is the Pres. Clinton was the Pres.
Cain is just a candidate! Yes if Cain was the Pres. I would have much more of an issue with it.

These are ridiculous statements. You are comparing apples to oranges. Obama is the Pres. Clinton was the Pres.
Cain is just a candidate! Yes if Cain was the Pres. I would have much more of an issue with it.

Pax

So it's ok to sexually harass people as long as you're not the president?

I do not understand this logic. Past acts are an indication of what to expect in the future. Do you think that by swearing his oath he'll become
impotent or something?

FYI I'm not a "naive liberal" - I'm more conservative than most self proclaimed conservatives, but consider myself a moderate. People don't really
seem to truly understand what "conservative" and "liberal" mean nowadays. I've voted for republicans and independents the past few rounds.. Don't
assume because it makes you look silly when your assumptions are wrong.

So you would forgive Herman Cain if it was proven that all five women are telling the truth and he did sexually harass them? Where is the line for you
then? Is rape ok? What if he had 5000 unpaid parking tickets? What if he urinated in public? What if he knowingly gave HPV to a prostitute? I'm not
trying to be funny here - where would you draw the line and withdraw your support for Herman Cain?

These are ridiculous statements. You are comparing apples to oranges. Obama is the Pres. Clinton was the Pres.
Cain is just a candidate! Yes if Cain was the Pres. I would have much more of an issue with it.

Pax

Apples to Oranges as in Taxes to Taxes (c) Cain?

Of course the real difference between Cain and Clinton is that Clinton was never sued for harrasment.

Originally posted by neo96
Infidelity only matters when their is an R by their names past few weeks have been nothing about but destroying the lead Canididate and shape the 2012
election to give the current Potus a better shot.

Cain get's the GOP nomination and it becomes between him and Obama the race card can't be played like it has everday for the past 3 years.

It is nothing but stacking the deck for a Romney/Obama shootout in the world of politics the it's only purpose to to destroy with exception when it
comes to the R by their name and if their is a D meh so what.

Remember Clinton?

edit on 7-11-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Do you really believe the news only pays attention to infidelity when it is a republican? What world do you live in?

Did you miss the anthony weiner debacle? Or Jon Edwards?

Do you remember Clinton? That was on the news constantly.

Seriously, what world do you live in? It sure isn't what I'm seeing. The news media I see focuses intensely on ANY infidelity, regardless of
political party.

Not directed at Neo:
They aren't mere "allegations by anonymous people"...
He had a settlement for a years salary for TWO PEOPLE. This is a fact. Yes, two more people have come out(not anonymously), and you can't really
confirm their stories....
But we can confirm two people's stories. One person: It could've been an accident, since we don't know the specific details. Two people with
documented evidence: You're just blind if you keep denying he's a sexual deviant.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.